Loading...
Zoning Commission Minutes 2009 07-22-09 `,sEO Cl)-, APPROVED 02 o United City of Yorkville County Seat of Kendall County = 1836 800 Game Farm Road o h ;: Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 9 .. :ro';, 0 Telephone: 630-553-4350 <kE \�Y Meeting Minutes Zoning Ordinance Commission Wednesday July 22, 2009 Yorkville City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road ATTENDEES: Zoning Commission: Mike Crouch,Chair Jeff Baker Greg Millen Ralph Pfister Phil Haugen Al Green United City of Yorkville Staff: Travis Miller,Community Development Department Director Stephanie Boettcher,Senior Planner Anna Kurtzman,Zoning Coordinator MINUTES Mike Crouch, Chair of the Zoning Commission, called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Stephanie Boettcher called role. A quorum was established at this time. The committee reviewed the minutes from the June 24 meeting. Minutes were approved with no corrections. Travis Miller began the meeting by explaining the revisions made to the table of contents. Miller explained that chapters 6 and 7 are additional chapters, currently permitted uses, special uses, and dimensional requirements are listed in each zoning district. The proposed change would be to remove this information and place into one chapter for uses and one chapter for dimensional requirements, which would address all of the zoning districts. A table fonnat would be used, similar to the assessment report. The intent and purpose chapters would remain for each zoning district. Miller also identified the other new, additional chapters, Conservation Design District and Historic Downtown Overlay District. Miller then explained the changes made to the Zoning Purpose and Interpretation Chapter. Crouch explained that most of the changes were"housekeeping" items, except for the staff recommendation to remove item D from the section 10-1-2. Jeff Baker thought item D was covered in the other list of purposes, such as item E. Al Green thought that while light and air were addressed in item E, access to property was not. Anna Kurtzman explained that the ordinance originally stated that every lot had to have accessed by a public right of way, which was recently modified, and this item allowed for the zoning ordinance to address it. Crouch thought that access and convenience of access are two different things and who determines convenience. Green felt that striking item D was not appropriate and thought it was best to combine it with another item. The commission agreed to combine item D with item F and strike the phrase `convenience of. Green also did not agree with removing `and' from item E. Crouch thought that removing it was best as the actions listed are"to protect the public health". The deletion was agreed upon by the commission. The commission then went through the Zoning Administration and Enforcement Chapter. Miller explained that most the revisions made to the chapter brings the chapter up to date to reflect the current procedures, so the procedures are properly codified. The only new procedure is section 10-4-1B Section 4A. Miller went through the added text which establishes a zoning administrator and highlighted the duties of the position. Miller explained that one of the duties is to"register all non conforming uses" which will be important as the zoning ordinance is updated. The scope of the task wouldn't be realized until the zoning ordinance update is complete. Miller explained that part of the research will be done as part of the update, but a lot will be following approval. Phil Haugen asked was a register done in 1973. Miller replied no. Haugen asked what the City would do with the information. Miller explained that the current ordinance has a time period in which a non conforming use has to become a conforming use. Staff would have information if a petitioner came in to request expansion, change of use, etc. Kurtzman also said the register would ease staff research time in the future. Haugen asked what if a property was missed. Baker state he was against registering non conforming uses, and thought there was no way in which all non conforming properties could be found. Baker thought it was a waste of man hours and was not comfortable with the City gathering information on what is wrong with a property. Ralph Pfister felt it was best to quantify the non conforming uses in the city, so the city knows what is out there. Pfister thought it was best to do the data gathering now, when the City is smaller, than when it is larger. Pfister though gathering this type of information was no different than what is collected for the Census. Pfister thought this was good information to have and that gathering the information was not a monumental task given GIS, etc. Crouch asked if all property owners know they are on a non conforming use and how it was enforced. Green asked if property owners have to register or the staff will register properties. Crouch agreed that he would like to know how many properties exist. Kurtzman explained that the register is just assessing if the property is being used as the zoning code says it should be used. This would not address setbacks. Kurtzman explained that 'grandfathering' is anything legally established prior to a code being adopted. Crouch thought that the inventory would mostly take place in the older part of the city. Boettcher explained that if a downtown overlay district was developed an inventory would need to be done, so some of the data gathering could be coupled with that. Crouch felt it was better off knowing the number of non conforming uses, without that information, a timeline is worthless. Baker still was not in favor in registering. Miller asked if better language was"identify all nonconforming uses" as opposed to register. With the word register it opens up the question of who does the registering and how do they know they are nonconforming. The commission agreed that identify was better language. Miller explained the new procedure in which staff would have authority to permit uses with the general character of those currently allowed if they aren't specifically listed in the zoning ordinance(section 10- 4-1 subsection B-4-A). Kurtzman explained that currently the plan commission has this authority. Miller explained that from an efficiency standpoint, this would be a better policy. Haugen asked who makes the determination now. Miller explained that staff uses common sense in determining if a proposed use is similar to a permitted use. If staff is unsure, then the request goes to plan commission. Haugen asked if the plan commission would want be relieved of these duties. Miller explained that the only difference is time. Haugen felt that from language standpoint it made sense to him and wanted to ensure a petitioner had the ability to appeal a decision made by the zoning administrator. The commission was in favor of the text addition. Green asked about section 10-4-5 in which reconstruction is mentioned in subsection A-1, but not mentioned in subsection A-2. Similarly,the word alteration is used in A-2, but not A-1. Green thought this should match. Kurtzman suggested the Building Official look at the discrepancy. Baker asked about the 15-30 day requirement to post notice of a hearing. Miller explained that this was a state statute. Green thought the word `calendar' should be added. Miller also explained that in 2008 the notice requirement was increased from 250' to 500' for administrative ease as some items required 250', while others were 500'. Baker asked if there has been any feedback on this. Miller explained that the petitioner's biggest issue has been cost, but with the ordinance backing up the requirement,there hasn't been much discussion beyond that. Miller explained that other municipalities are looking into other methods, such as the post office providing a certified list,which reduces mailing cost. Kurtzman suggested it was best to check state statute on if the ordinance should state `registered certified'. Pfister asked if you have to place signage on the property for a rezoning. Miller also explained that posting a public notice on the property was not codified and that the recommendation was either to codify the procedure or stop the practice. The commission agreed that the language should be added to ordinance and the practice should be continued. Green asked about section 10-4-7 subsection C-1-A, which uses the term "mere inconvenience,"how this was determined and thought it should be removed. Miller replied that staff will have to check state statute on this language. Staff asked if the percentages listed in section 10-4-7 subsection D were appropriate. Kurtzman explained that there is wide range on who can rule on a variance, with some communities providing the ZBA with 100%authority and others provide the City Council with 100% authority. Baker commented that one or two times a year ZBA meets and allowed to rule according to the percentages in the ordinance and the remainder are advisory. Baker did not want the full responsibility on the ZBA, but couldn't come up with a recommended percentage. Crouch asked for a comparison to other municipalities. The commission is to further consider these percentages. Miller explained that above the percentage threshold the zoning board of appeals makes a recommendation which is forwarded onto City Council for final approval, a 2/3 vote of city council is necessary to reverse a ZBA recommendation. Cases which are below the percentage threshold the zoning board of appeals can make a ruling without forwarding it onto city council. Green mentioned section 10-4-7 subsection 2, in which elected officials are mentioned, does this also apply to appointed officials. Miller replied that staff will check state statute. Baker asked about petitioners required to turn in the copies of the returned receipts of the certified mailing 24 hours before the public hearing. The typical practice has been to obtain this information the day of the public hearing. The commission agreed to change the text to prior to the public hearing and the copies should be submitted to the zoning administrator,not the officer. Millen asked about subsection B in special use(section 10-4-8),what if a renter, do they not need owner consent. Miller explained that an owner of the property has to sign the application. Crouch commented the phrase"having an interest in the subject property"was unclear. The commission agreed to rewrite section B, Initiation of Special Use, to include needing the consent of the owner. Miller explained that a petitioner does not have to be a property owner, but the property owner's signature is required on the application for annexation, development, etc. Green asked why in section 10-4-9,the zoning administrator has to give notice to applicant sentence is in this section, but not in other sections. Green questioned why the majority of section 10-4-10 on Annexations dealt with zoning amendments or variations. Kurtzman explained a couple of process could go on at one time, and this needs to be articulated in the ordinance. Miller explained that typically property is zoned with annexation. Crouch suggested referring back to a section as opposed to having the same language in the annexation section. Miller explained that an annexation does not require a public hearing; however an annexation agreement requires a public hearing. Kurtzman suggested having one section for public notice, adding section 13, instead of repeating the information. Kurtzman also mentioned that a process for appeals, the recourse for interpretation, language needs to be codified. The fee schedule was reviewed by the commission. Kurtzman's recommendation was to remove the entire fee schedule from the zoning ordinance as it is easier to revise if it is removed. Most municipalities do not include a fee schedule in the zoning ordinance. The section would remain and would reference a future document, another section of code or resolution. Crouch was comfortable with a reference to the fee schedule and removing it from the document. Baker commented that the recommended fee increases were a large jump from what was in the ordinance. Miller explained that a comparison to surrounding municipalities' fee schedules will be done to justify the suggested amendments. Crouch asked when were the fees changed or have they been changed in the ordinance. The commission agreed to remove the fee schedule. Haugen asked for section 10-14-11 subsection B-2 be revised in order to remove city staff personnel. Green said this section was to address an applicant not providing direct payment to consultants or city staff. The commission agreed the section and language was important and should remain. Millen asked what would be an example of a temporary use. Kurtzman gave the example of seasonal outdoor sales. Baker asked if the zoning ordinance would address examples such as products which sit in front of gas stations. There is too many things placed outside that it makes it difficult to navigate the walkway. Kurtzman explained that there is an Illinois state accessibility law which prohibits walkways from being blocked from a handicapped parking space to the store entrance. Miller thought this was more a site design issue as opposed to a zoning issue. Kurtzman mentioned outdoor sales areas or outdoor seating adds to retail space and should be used in calculating the amount of required parking spaces. Miller also mentioned that some outdoor sales areas take up part of the parking lot,thus removing spaces. Given this, the outdoor sales could be addressed in the zoning ordinance with provisions on size, proportion, or designation. The next meeting will be on Wednesday August 26 at 7:00 pm the permitted, special use, and dimensional requirement tables will be discussed. The commission agreed to a calendar revision in which they will continue to meet the 4h Wednesday each month from through October. The commission will take the months of November and December off. The meeting was adjoined at 9:00 pm. Minutes submitted by Stephanie Boettcher